Ed Zotti posted the following a couple of hours ago in this thread:
Emphasis mine.
As a point of clarification: what is the principled distinction you are drawing between “asshole” (okay) and “dick” (not okay)?
Thanks.
'taint much.
[sub](I’m so, so sorry…)[/sub]
I would like an answer to this, too. “Dick” is one of the mildest personal insults I can think of, barely a step above “jerk.”
Every time I think I have a handle on what this new rule is trying to prevent, Ed or some other mod/admin comes along and posts a “clarification” that confuses me even further.
No you are not.
Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.
It appears to me that the line is drawn at the perineum.
Structures anterior to the perineum, such as cunts and dicks are not okay; whereas structures posterior to the perineum, such as assholes are acceptable.
It seems prertty clear to me that the rule is if it offends Ed and/or Lynn, it’s unacceptable.
What about the prostate?
That’s what is known in the legal world as a “stupid” rule.
Outside of it as well, believe me.
Indeed.
Where are we measuring from?
Which would be ok if I understood what offended them.
But I don’t.
I can’t think of any general principle that allows “asshole” but not the much milder “dick”. Hell, “penis breath” got by in a PG movie (E.T.) in the '80s…but the much milder “dick” isn’t acceptable here?
I’m not asking for much–just some guidelines:
“Body parts on the back are ok, but body parts on the front aren’t.”?
“If it begins with a vowel, it’s ok, but if starts with a consonant, watch out!”?
“Four letter body parts (cunt, dick)=bad, anything else goes.”?
Help me out here Ed–Why “dick” and not “asshole”? Why “asshole” and not “ass” (from an earlier decision)? I don’t think I’ve ever been warned–and in part, that’s 'cause I understood the rules and followed them.
I’ll obey every rule you give (or quit posting if the rule is too noxious, I suppose) but first you have to tell me what the rule is!
I don’t know where you got this from; to me at least asshole << dick on the offensiveness scale.
In either case, they both translate to “I don’t like you / your opinion on this matter, and I want you to know so”, so why not just say that?
One is sexual and one isn’t. I was trying to limit the Bad Words list to a small number. If you’d rather, though, we can include the whole laundry list of words like asshole, bitch, shithead, and so on. Other than not having a rule at all, I’m open to different ways to do this. Maybe we should just have a list of Bad Words you can’t direct at another poster, while of course retaining a rule against unspecified “hateful remarks,” to cover the rare case of one of those comments that makes you gasp but doesn’t use any of the proscribed words. How’s that?
I agree with Fenris; “dick” has become a comparatively mild epithet. Pretty sure I’ve even heard it on a network show.
:weeps:
Personally I think having a specific Bad Words list might be really, really helpful here, especially if, as you say, it’s limited to a small number. (I still disagree that “dick” is inherently sexual or hateful or super offensive, but that’s not really a hill I want to die on, so to speak.)
I think a far better plan is not coming up with half-baked rules and trying to enforce them in an illogical and ill-conceived fashion to correct a problem that hardly even exists.
pssst…don’t make Zotti uncomfortable. Pass it along.
Is this the new standard, basically? Does the eventual unfolding of Rule #2 turn out to be “Ed Zotti’s mom reads this board…don’t post anything that might give her the vapors?” How can this be any kind of standard if new things get added to it before we even know what the outlines are (despite quite a number of threads asking for that outline to be delineated)? Can you throw us some general boundaries that maybe won’t have to be moved (or “elaborated”) within a week?
Can’t you tell that Ed isn’t sure himself?
We’re fucked.